Ryan v. United States

CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHARLAN
CitationRyan v. United States, 379 U.S. 61, 85 S.Ct. 232, 13 L.Ed.2d 122 (1964)
Decision Date23 November 1964
Docket NumberNo. 12,12
PartiesBayard Edward RYAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

William R. Bagby, Lexington, Ky., for petitioner.

Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In August 1961, Internal Revenue Agent Whelan issued a summons to taxpayer Ryan ordering him to produce his books for the years 1942 through 1953 inclusive. Ryan appeared but refused to produce the records, claiming that because tax liability for those years was long since barred except for fraud, 1 the agent had no right to examine the records unless he could show grounds for suspecting fraud.

The Government then instituted an enforcement proceeding in a federal district court pursuant to § 7402(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.2 The complaint alleged that on the basis of estimated net worth calcula- tions the agent strongly suspected fraud, and that examination of the records for the years in question was relevant and material in determining its existence. The taxpayer answered, putting the question of probable cause in issue, and, in addition, stating that he had not received the letter required by § 7605(b) informing him that the Secretary or his delegate had determined the examination to be necessary.3

At the hearing the District Judge clearly indicated his opinion that the Government need not show probable cause for suspecting fraud, and ordered Ryan to produce those records which he had available. Although the hearing confirmed Ryan's assertion that no 'necessity letter' had been sent to him, the judge made no mention of this, probably because counsel did not press the point.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, 6 Cir., 320 F.2d 500, on the theory that no full-scale showing of probable cause need be made. Except for the records relating to the year 1945, which appeared to have been once previously examined, the court ruled that no necessity letter was required by § 7605(b) because the Government had made no previous examination of those years.

We granted certiorari, 376 U.S. 904, 84 S.Ct. 658, 11 L.Ed.2d 604, on the only issue raised by petitioner, whether the Government must show probable cause for its examination of the records.4 On that issue we sustain the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons given in United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice GOLDBERG concur in the result, because they believe that through the testimony of Internal Revenue Agent Whelan a sufficient showing was made that the Government was not proceeding capriciously in this case.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
39 cases
  • Donaldson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1971
    ...decided United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964), and its companion case, Ryan v. United States, 379 U.S. 61, 85 S.Ct. 232, 13 L.Ed.2d 122 (1964). These concerned, respectively, internal revenue summonses issued to the president of a corporate taxpayer and t......
  • DiPiazza v. United States, 18593
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 11, 1969
    ...a proper device for obtaining records. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112; Ryan v. United States, 379 U.S. 61, 85 S.Ct. 232, 13 L.Ed.2d 122, aff'g 320 F.2d 500 (6th Cir.). The burden is on the party objecting to the summons to show that it was used for an......
  • McGreal v. AT & T Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 24, 2012
    ...subpoenas duces tecum are rarely found to be so intrusive as to violate the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Ryan v. United States, 379 U.S. 61, 62, 85 S.Ct. 232, 13 L.Ed.2d 122 (1964) (the IRS subpoena of an individual taxpayer's records did not require probable cause); Doe v. United States, 2......
  • Hayes v. Jones Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • September 30, 2022
    ... ... 2:20-cv-118-TBM-MTP United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division Signed September 30, 2022 633 F.Supp.3d ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • What tax litigators wish other tax professionals knew.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 54 No. 8, August 2023
    • August 1, 2023
    ...cause, in the traditional sense, to believe that a violation of the tax laws exists" (citing Powell, 379 U.S. at 48)). See also Ryan, 379 U.S. 61, 62 (4.) Be certain the file includes all information received from the client in whatever form of communication chosen--email, text, etc. (5.) K......